This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: egcs-19990502 u77-test.f failure on Irix6.5 -Reply
- To: zack at rabi dot columbia dot edu (IPM Return requested) (Receipt notification requested) (Reply requested)
- Subject: Re: egcs-19990502 u77-test.f failure on Irix6.5 -Reply
- From: Tim C Prince <Prince_Tim_C at solarturbines dot com>
- Date: 03 May 1999 15:47:00 Z
- Alternate-Recipient: Allowed
- cc: craig at jcb-sc dot com (IPM Return requested) (Receipt notification requested) (Reply requested), egcs-bugs at egcs dot cygnus dot com (IPM Return requested) (Receipt notification requested) (Reply requested), Prince_Tim_C at solarturbines dot com (IPM Return requested) (Receipt notification requested) (Reply requested)
- Conversion: Allowed
- Disclose-Recipients: Prohibited
- Expiry-Date: 02 Jun 1999 00:00:00 Z
- Original-Encoded-Information-Types: IA5-Text
- X400-Content-Type: P2-1988 ( 22 )
- X400-MTS-Identifier: [/c=US/admd= /prmd=Cat/; 372E27B3.6E8C.2C92.000]
- X400-Originator: Prince_Tim_C@solarturbines.com
- X400-Recipients: non-disclosure;
A certain number of legacy codes are using etime and maybe
dtime, particularly as f95 is not yet generally available in Unix. I
don't know why anyone having f90 or g77 available would be
using ctime, but I thought it was there only for legacy
compatibility. If anyone is writing or modifying code, they
should be using DATE_AND_TIME. My main interest here is in
being able to show a clean testsuite for g77; either these things
should work or be deprecated or removed. That's prompt work!
>>> craig@jcb-sc.com 05/03/99 05:09pm >>>
>Small test case:
>
> implicit none
> intrinsic time, ctime
> integer i
> character ctim*25, ctim2*25
>
> i = time ()
> ctim = ctime (i)
> call ctime (ctim2, i)
>
> print *, 'CTIME() = ', ctim
> print *, 'CALL CTIME = ', ctim2
> if (ctim .ne. ctim2) then
> print *, 'CTIME() disagrees with CALL CTIME'
> end if
>
> end
>
>
Ah. But. I see the problem. g77 is passing a `long *' for xstime,
even though it really points to an `int', not a `long'. Naughty. I
was wondering why there was an apparently spurious "st
%l1,[%fp-116]"
before the second call, why earlier there was a "std" into what
seemed to be the location for `i', etc. Looking at the Irix6 output
Tim sent confirmed this.
Also, I'm reversing the arguments for CTIME_subr, DTIME_subr,
ETIME_subr,
and TTYNAM_subr, to be consistent with the other _subr's I
invented.
Hope this doesn't inconvenience anybody -- if there's any legacy
code
out there that expects the previous calling sequence, I'll be very
surprised, and would be willing to support the old ones as well
(as I
believe they're all distinguishable by g77 versus the new ones).
tq vm, (burley)